D. D. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, No. 19-55810 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff, a student with ADHD and disability-related behavioral issues, filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alleging that the school district denied him equal access to a public education because of his disability. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative procedures under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as required when a plaintiff seeks relief under other federal statutes for the denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
In 2020, the Ninth Circuit vacated the dismissal. The en banc court subsequently affirmed the dismissal, holding that exhaustion of the IDEA process was required because the gravamen of the complaint was the denial of a FAPE by failing to provide a one-on-one behavioral aide and related supportive services. The court analyzed two hypothetical questions: whether the plaintiff could have brought essentially the same claim if the alleged conduct had occurred at a non-school public facility, and whether an adult at the school could have pressed essentially the same grievance. A court also must consider the history of the proceedings, particularly whether the plaintiff has previously invoked the IDEA’s formal procedures to handle the dispute. The court rejected D.D.’s argument that he need not exhaust because he seeks compensatory damages for emotional distress, which is not available under the IDEA. The court declined to address whether D.D.’s settlement of the administrative proceedings equated to exhaustion or whether D.D.’s settlement rendered further exhaustion futile.
Court Description: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The en banc court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of student D.D.’s action under the Americans with Disabilities Act against Los Angeles Unified School District for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The en banc court held that exhaustion of the IDEA process was required because the gravamen of the ADA complaint was the school district’s denial of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) in failing to provide a one-on-one behavioral aide and related supportive services. The en banc court applied Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017), which directs a court to ask two hypothetical questions: (1) whether the plaintiff could have brought essentially the same claim if the alleged conduct had occurred at a public facility that was not a school, and (2) whether an adult at the school have pressed essentially the same grievance. Under Fry, a court also must consider the history of the proceedings, in particular whether the D.D. V. L.A.U.S.D. 3 plaintiff has previously invoked the IDEA’s formal procedures to handle the dispute. Declining to revisit Payne v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc), the en banc court rejected D.D.’s argument that he need not exhaust because he seeks compensatory damages for emotional distress, relief that is not available under the IDEA. The en banc court declined to address whether D.D.’s settlement of the administrative proceedings that he pursued prior to filing suit equated to exhaustion. The en banc court also declined to address the related question of whether D.D.’s settlement rendered further exhaustion futile. Judge Bumatay, joined by Judge Collins, and joined by Chief Judge Thomas and Judges Paez and Berzon as to Parts I.B and II, concurred in part and dissented in part. Judge Bumatay agreed with the majority that under Fry, D.D.’s complaint concerned an injury to his right to a FAPE. He wrote that he nonetheless would vacate the district court’s order because, in his view, by the IDEA’s plain text, when a complaint seeks money damages not available under the IDEA, the plaintiff is freed from the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement. Chief Judge Thomas and Judges Paez and Berzon joined in Parts I.B and II of Judge Bumatay’s opinion, stating that a plaintiff who seeks damages is generally not required to exhaust the IDEA process. Dissenting, Judge Paez, joined by Chief Judge Thomas and Judge Berzon, wrote that he would reverse the district court’s dismissal order and remand because the gravamen of D.D.’s operative complaint was a disability discrimination claim under the ADA. 4 D.D. V. L.A.U.S.D. Dissenting, Judge Berzon, joined by Chief Judge Thomas and Judge Paez, wrote that she joined Judge Paez’s dissent in full and joined the dissenting portions of Judge Bumatay’s opinion. She wrote separately to call attention to the question, not decided by the majority, whether settlement after IDEA-prescribed mediation amounts to exhaustion. Judge Berzon wrote that she would hold that the exhaustion requirement is satisfied when the parties have settled disputed IDEA issues through the administrative hearing and mediation process.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 31, 2020.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.